Standing Committee F

[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]

Hunting Bill

Clause 2 - Registered hunting

Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I was absent from the Committee last week, attending the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. My attention has been drawn to references to me made in the Committee on 28 January. Notice of the intention of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) to make those references did not arrive in my office until after I had left for Strasbourg, despite the fact that the quoted letter from Stanley Johnson was sent to him on 17 December 2002.
 I probably receive more letters on animal welfare issues than any other Member, other than Ministers. That has been the case since 1983. It is true that the International Fund for Animal Welfare provided funding for a research assistant in my office from 1991. That was declared in the Register of Members' Interests every year, and to the Inland Revenue. That support ceased when I became a Minister in 1997 and I have not sought any renewal of it. My involvement with a wide range of animal welfare organisations is one of the worst kept secrets in Parliament. I am proud of those links and have never sought to hide them. 
 I deeply resent any suggestion that my support for animal welfare arises from a financial consideration, or that I have failed to register any financial support. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire has now written to the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards. I have spoken to Sir Philip and received a copy of the letter that he sent to the hon. Gentleman. I shall obviously not quote from that letter, but suffice it to say that the clear imputation is that the hon. Gentleman should put up or shut up. I endorse that, because if the hon. Gentleman thinks I will let the matter rest, he is sadly mistaken. 
 As for Stanley Johnson's letter, I have referred it to my solicitors, since it has been made available to the public and press and is not covered by parliamentary privilege. Johnson's letter makes allegations that I know to be untrue and believe to be damaging. The letter that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire wrote to the Commissioner, dated 27 January—the day before he raised the matter in this Committee—referred to ''undeclared donations''. He must now know that that is untrue. It is for others to judge whether Stanley Johnson or I have made the greater contribution to the cause of animal welfare. I understand that Johnson has received a salary from IFAW of between £70,000 and £80,000 a year for 15 years. That sum is not unadjacent to £1 million. I wonder how many of IFAW's members know that one of its most highly paid employees was such an 
 enthusiastic supporter of hunting. I hope only that Johnson has managed to save something from that £1 million, because he is going to need it.

George Stevenson: Order. I tried to be patient with the hon. Gentleman's point of order because, clearly, this is an issue in which he has been directly referred to as a Member. I think that the point of order has now been well exercised.

James Gray: Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I have two points to make. First, I wrote to the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) before I made that point in the Committee. The fact that he had left early, or that his office did not pass his letter on to him, is not a matter for me. I took great care to ensure that he was warned in advance and I apologise for the fact that he did not get the letter.
 Secondly, I am delighted to accept his vehement denials of the allegations made against him. The press and others will no doubt notice his denials. However, the point that I made in Committee was that £1 million had been donated by IFAW to the Labour party and that it was paying that back under this Bill.

George Stevenson: Order. Neither of those points is a point of order. I must maintain the credibility of the Chair. Hon. Members have put what they wanted to say on the record.
 Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 93, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 14, at end insert 'and'.—[Mr. Gray.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

George Stevenson: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
 Amendment No. 76, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out from 'place' to end of line 20.

Alun Michael: The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who commented on the amendment, is not in his place at the moment. He explained to me that he would be unable to be here at the start of this sitting, because he had to deal with a constituency matter. I have therefore explained to him what I shall now explain to the Committee, which will, I hope, clear up some of the misapprehensions that have led to certain comments.
 I draw the Committee's attention to clause 28(5), which concerns the record-keeping requirements for people hunting under the authority of group registrations. Such records must be retained by the hunters for six months beyond the duration of the registration. There is absolutely no question of the information being passed to the registrar or put in the public domain. It is clear exactly how long that information has to be retained. The records do not go to the registrar or tribunal, but the hunt may choose to rely on them when challenged, for example for failure to comply with the conditions of registration, or when a query is raised as to whether a particular individual has undertaken activity within the context of that registration or under the supervision of one of the registered hunters. The records cover only hunt 
 participants—those who hunt—and not casual hunt followers, who are merely observing, not hunting. 
 I hope that that makes the purpose of that measure clear. It is for the protection of those involved. It makes quite clear who can rely on the protection of the law because they are hunting legitimately, under the protection of registration, and, by implication, who is not hunting legitimately. It has been suggested that someone unfriendly to those undertaking an activity might pretend to be part of the group in order to spoil that activity or imply that something was being done in breach of the registration conditions. The system here is far from being, as one hon. Member suggested, extraordinarily bureaucratic; we have a very simple, light-touch requirement, which will protect individuals and achieve certainty about what is taking place. 
 Amendment No. 76 would remove the requirement for a record to be made of the identity of the persons involved on each occasion that hunting is carried out in reliance of group registration. That would not make sense and would undermine the simple, straightforward system. Clause 28 sets out the automatic conditions to which group registration is subject, for example, that 
''any wild mammal injured or captured is killed quickly''.
 Clause 28(5) requires the maintaining of the record, as I have said. It would be nonsense to have no record of who was hunting in reliance of registration on any particular occasion. Amendment No. 93 is, of course, a consequential amendment. 
 I hope that, for those reasons, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire will not seek to press his amendment.

James Gray: Given that the Bill is about animal welfare, as everyone keeps saying, I have no idea why a hunt keeping a record of the people hunting on a particular Saturday for six months and then destroying it improves or worsens the animal welfare aspect. It seems to me that it achieves nothing at all.
 I do, however, take some comfort from the Minister's response. First, he said that it is the hunt that will keep the records. That is not all that clear in clause 28(5), even from a careful reading, but I take some comfort from it. Secondly, he has made it clear that the people who are supposed to be registered are those taking part in the hunt, namely the master of the huntsmen and the people controlling the dogs. There is no necessity at all to keep a note on the field—the followers, the observers, or the people who like to spectate as at a football match. That is a great comfort and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

James Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 92, in
clause 2, page 2, line 1, at end insert 'and'.

George Stevenson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 71, in
clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out from 'place' to end of line 7.

James Gray: The amendment would remove the requirement that the number of people who hunt for someone else who is subject to an individual
 registration must not be higher than two. Under the Bill, no more than two people may go hunting with someone who is registered. If the Bill is about animal welfare, what purpose is there in saying that only two people can hunt with a registered individual rather than three, four or six? It is clear that the provision could not be extended to cover 50 or 100 people because that would be a group registration, but in terms of an individual registration there are plenty of circumstances in which one can imagine that more than three people would go out with dogs to hunt. Gamekeepers, for example, could get together with their dogs, which is a perfectly normal activity, and that would amount to more than two or three people.
 The truth is that the restriction, which is designed to prevent hunting, fails to take account of the practical realities on the ground. If two people who were individually registered met up they would be all right, but if one of them met up with three of their mates, they would not be all right. There are all kinds of circumstances in which two or three people might get together and cause an offence by walking through a wood with their dogs. That would be absurd because the provision would pick up lots of people who should not be prosecuted under the Bill. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendments and drop those onerous and unnecessary restrictions.

Gregory Barker: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. You will be aware that the Room is extremely crowded. We have moved from Room No. 14 to Room No. 11. I just popped down to Room No. 14, and there were six people in the Gallery. I am aware that some people have been unable to get into the Gallery to attend our deliberations on this extremely important Bill. I wonder whether you could bear that in mind and, through your good offices, ensure that there is sufficient room in the Gallery.

Adrian Flook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Members of the public who have been unable to get into this Room have approached me. I sent a note to one of the Doorkeepers asking whether extra seats could be brought in, and he replied that this Room is not big enough.

George Stevenson: I raised the matter with the Clerk this morning, but, as always, there are valid reasons why we are in this more intimate atmosphere, which I think encouraged this morning's debate, although my opinion may be wrong. The point is serious, but I understand that there is televised Committee work in Room No. 14. One reason why we have moved is that it is impossible to televise from this Room. I have been assured that we will be back in Committee Room No. 14 next week. Those are the reasons, and there is nothing I can do about them, although I accept the points that have been raised.

Nicholas Soames: Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Given that very few of our Ulster colleagues sit on the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, could you not use your considerable influence to have that vastly inferior Committee moved into this Room and our Committee transhipped into Room No. 14? That would immediately resolve the problem.

George Stevenson: I am extremely grateful for the hon. Gentleman's undoubtedly inflated opinion of my influence. Apologies are due to the public, particularly those who have been unable to get into the Room. However, there are issues that are outside my control. My job is not only to make representations, which I will do although I do not think that they will be successful. We need to get back into Committee Room No. 14 at the earliest possible opportunity.

Peter Luff: Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson? Who decides whether a Committee will be broadcast? Is it the broadcasters? Surely it should be for the House to decide which Committees go in which Room and not the broadcasters.

George Stevenson: Those are questions that the points of order oblige me to ask. We will not, however, get to the bottom of the matter today. The points have been well made. We apologise to the public who have been unable to get in, and it is right and proper that we should say that.

Colin Pickthall: Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. In the event that we should continue to sit this evening after the votes in the Chamber, would it be possible to move into Room No. 14?

George Stevenson: I am grateful for that valid point of order. The public, who have shown a great interest in the Bill, will understand that our apologies are on the record. The problem is that I have forgotten where I was.

Alun Michael: I am always happy to wait patiently. Amendment No. 71—amendment No. 92 is consequential to it—would remove the condition that sets the maximum number of two people who may accompany registered individuals without themselves needing to be registered.

Edward Garnier: We are discussing amendments Nos. 93 and 76. We have not yet got on to amendments Nos. 92 and 71.

George Stevenson: Order. The minute the Chair loses track, all sorts of things happen. We are on amendments Nos. 92 and 71.

Alun Michael: I am glad that I have not lost track of where we are, Mr. Stevenson.
 The amendment would remove the condition that sets the maximum number at two people who may accompany a registered individual without themselves needing to be registered, which is a requirement in clause 27(5). The amendment would allow a registered individual to be accompanied by an indefinite number of unregistered individuals. It would allow an infinite number of people to hunt in reliance on a single registered individual. That would undermine the requirement for group hunting registration, for which the registrar makes an assessment of the supervisory arrangements for unregistered hunters. 
 If the hon. Member for North Wiltshire thought that two was the wrong number, he should have tabled 
 an amendment to say that it should be three or four. A vague provision that it should not be two or that it should be an infinite number would clearly undermine the distinction between individual hunting and group hunting. The distinction exists because circumstances can differ. It enables applicants to make the limited nature of the activity that they want to undertake clear, whereas there are more onerous requirements if the application is for group hunting. The amendment is misplaced in its intention and would be damaging to the very sensible distinction between individual and group hunting allowed for in the Bill. I must therefore resist the amendment.

James Gray: Rarely have I heard a Minister replying to a proposed amendment to a Bill repeat with such exactitude precisely what the amendment's mover said. I said everything the Minister said a moment ago, namely that it is important to avoid group registration. My point is that two is too few. If two or three gamekeepers went out in the woods with dogs, they would be inadvertently caught up under the legislation. They would be guilty of an offence even though they were doing nothing wrong.
 The Minister has indulged in reductio ad absurdum—he probably does not know what that means—by saying that the amendment would allow an infinite number of people to take part in hunting, which is precisely not what we are proposing. We are asking him to change the Bill to allow a small group of people who get together in the circumstances that I described to hunt with their dogs. I would be content if he were to say, ''I take the point. There is nothing party political about it. It is a practical point. The amendment is sensible. I will ask my officials to look into the issue, and I will come back later with a proposal.'' The fact that he made nonsense out of the amendment by saying that it would allow an infinite number of people to hunt with one person shows how little he cares about the detail of how the Bill will work. 
 The Minister keeps saying that he wants a good Bill, that he wants it to be accepted and that it should stand the test of time. The Bill is badly drafted and wrong, but when we come up with sensible suggestions to improve its minute detail—we are not talking about anything important—he tosses them aside without considering them carefully. I intend to press the amendment to a vote not because it is important, or because I feel strongly about it, but because his response was so woefully inadequate.

Alun Michael: When the hon. Gentleman gets grumpy and pompous—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman likes dishing it out; he does not like receiving it.

George Stevenson: Order. Raising our voices and gesticulating across the Floor of the Committee Room is no way of conducting debate. It is perhaps just as well that many members of the public were not able to get in. I ask the Minister to be a little more careful in the use of his language when he is responding to the hon. Gentleman, who has made his point succinctly.

Alun Michael: In trying to defend the amendment, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire is guilty of the inflation of absurdity. If a number of people walking in the woods are not undertaking hunting activity, they are not caught by any provision. What on earth is the hon. Gentleman trying to protect them from? If they are undertaking hunting activity and are relying on the individual registration arrangements, they must observe the requirements in the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman were genuinely concerned about two not being enough and felt that it should be three, he would have tabled a simple and coherent amendment to offer an alternative. He did not do so. Frankly, he has missed the opportunity and the point.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 20.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Exempt hunting

Edward Garnier: I beg to move amendment No.4, in
clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 15 and 16.
 This will be a brief discussion about the negative and affirmative resolution procedures. I am moving the amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire and others. Under the clause, the Secretary of State may by order amend schedule 1 to vary a class of exempt hunting. We shall consider shortly the detail of schedule 1. It is a lengthy schedule, which deals with exempt hunting. The powers given to the Secretary of State to make subsidiary legislation and, in this case, to amend primary legislation should be dealt with under the affirmative resolution procedure and not, as clause 48 provides, under the negative resolution procedure. 
 Clause 48(1) states: 
''An order, regulations or rules made by the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor under this Act shall be made by statutory instrument.''
 Clause 48(2) states: 
''An order of the Secretary of State under this Act may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.''
 Clause 48(3) states: 
''Regulations and rules under this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.''
 If I am wrong and amendments to the schedule are to be dealt with under the affirmative procedure, I shall be happy. However, the drafting of clause 48, when married to clause 3, is not clear. If the amendments are to be dealt with under the negative procedure, I am unhappy. There is far too much of that, and we ought to stop it.

George Stevenson: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman finished his speech?

Edward Garnier: Yes, I have. Would you like me to say it again?

Mark Tami: As this is the first time that I have spoken in the Committee, I thank you for your chairmanship, Mr. Stevenson. I agree, at least in part, with the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). It is important to cover this issue, which was discussed on Thursday, when I was not here. A future Secretary of State should not have a wide-ranging power to exempt certain forms of hunting in schedule 1. If there is to be a change—clearly that could be a fundamental change—it should be dealt with on the Floor of the House and not by some back-door method.

Alun Michael: Happily, I am able to agree with the line of argument. I hope that I can satisfy hon. Members immediately. If they look at the wording of subsection 2, they will see that it states explicitly:
''The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 1 so as to vary a class of exempt hunting.''
 If hon. Members turn to clause 48(2), they will see that it is very clear and states: 
''An order of the Secretary of State under this Act may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.''
 The provisions make it explicit that the affirmative resolution procedure has to be used in relation to this clause. 
 The purpose of the power is to deal with the unforeseen situation in which the detail of an existing exemption is wrong. For example, an exemption may have been drafted in such a way that does not reflect what happens in practice, or experience may show that a way has been found to circumvent the intention of the exemption and the restriction a particular activity. If there is a need for change in the light of experience, Ministers can use the power by speedily laying an order before the House. The alternative would be primary legislation, which can be extremely time-consuming, even if it is obvious, simple and supported on both sides of the House. 
 Safeguards are built into the procedure, and they are precisely those that were requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. The removal of exemptions and the introduction new exemptions are not permitted. The power is limited to variations on existing exemptions. An order to make a variation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which requires the order to be approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. 
 In the light of that, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

Edward Garnier: I am. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Exempt hunting

Colin Pickthall: I beg to move amendment No. 335, in
schedule 1, page 21, line 5, leave out 'wild mammal' and insert 'deer'.

George Stevenson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 336, in 
schedule 1, page 21, line 5, leave out 'it' and insert 'a fox'.
 Amendment No. 203, in 
schedule 1, page 21, line 5, leave out 'out of cover'.

Colin Pickthall: Like all Committees, we have had some problems with words in the Bill for which usage in legislation does not entirely conform to normal usage. In paragraph 1, there may be a problem with words whose general usage might not apply in the context of hunting. If amendments Nos. 335 and 336 were accepted, the first sentence of schedule 1 would read, ''Stalking deer or flushing a fox out of cover is exempt hunting if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied.''
 The first of the two amendments is intended to clarify the word ''stalking'' and to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to confirm precisely what is meant by that in the schedule. Obviously, the word has a general meaning. One can stalk almost anything, even human beings—that was the subject of the Bill that was piloted through the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson). However, in the specific context of our debate on hunting, the word relates to deer stalking. If flushing deer were exempt—which is allowed by paragraph 1(1) as it is drafted—deer drives would again be possible, and deer would run from flushing dogs in such a state of disorder that they could not be shot humanely or even safely. 
 Stalking deer is a more humane and precise business. It is well established and plays a valuable part in maintaining the health of the deer population. Amendment No. 335 would link stalking very firmly with deer, to the exclusion of other mammals. 
 Similarly, amendment No. 336 would link flushing with foxes, to the exclusion of other mammals. Bearing in mind all the other restrictions in the Bill, it is recognised that it may sometimes be necessary to flush out foxes with dogs so that they can then be shot. That does not apply, for example, to hare, which would be included in the paragraph as it is presently drafted. Hare shooting, for which I personally have great distaste, does not involve dogs as active participants. The hare is driven out by humans and then shot. 
 The purpose of the two amendments is very simple. They would ensure that only deer are stalked and only foxes are flushed, to prevent deer drives and the flushing of hares with dogs. Incidentally, that would be another challenge to illegal hare coursers, whom we all deplore. What does my right hon. Friend intend by the word ''stalking'' and does he think that altering line 5 as I propose would make the schedule clearer?

Nicholas Soames: The amendments would restrict schedule 1 so that only the stalking of deer or flushing of foxes would be exempt. The flushing of deer, the stalking of foxes—anyone doing that would have a thin time—and the flushing or stalking of other wild animals such as mink, stoats, hares and grey squirrels are not exempt. The National Gamekeepers Organisation is a reputable and important body in the countryside, and represents professional men and some women who are highly skilled in their jobs and whose work is essential to the good order, demeanour and general interests of the countryside. It has several reservations about the amendment, which I share.
 The NGO was pleased to be asked by the Minister to attend the hearings in Portcullis house, and I am grateful to him for meeting them and listening to them. I am less grateful to him for paying not the slightest attention to its important evidence. However, he accepted an amendment inspired by Conservative Members on ground-nesting game, which is small progress for which we are grateful. 
 The NGO, as the Minister knows, is a professional body of people and is entitled to have its views taken into account. In its judgment, the amendment would seriously curtail the interests of shooting. The Government have stated repeatedly that they have no intention of restricting shooting or the work of gamekeepers in any way, but the schedule would create huge difficulties for gamekeepers and those who shoot. Dogs are an important part of their armoury of around 4,000 gamekeepers. They help them to maintain good order, and enable them to do their job and to carry out the necessary task of controlling foxes, mink, stoats and others. Their activities will be made illegal or, at the very least, made a great deal more difficult to the point of impracticality. It is interesting to note that the NGO also contends that the Bill will make the use of dogs in the beating line on shoot days highly dangerous, because if several of them flush and chase a wild mammal, such as a fox or a hare, an offence could be committed. 
 I do not know, Mr. Stevenson, whether you have heard from your colleague, Mr. O'Hara, about the extensive discourse on ratting on Tristan da Cunha when we last debated this matter. I shall not go into that today, because it is unlikely that you would allow me to do so. That discourse was about the impossibility of stopping dogs, whose natural instinct is to chase, from doing so in, for example a beating line. Several Opposition Members have made that point. Would keepers in such circumstances be likely to have knowingly committed an offence? 
 The main problem with schedule 1 is that exempt hunting excludes the use of terriers underground, yet 46 per cent. of gamekeepers use their dogs in that way to control foxes. The practice is invaluable when 
 lamping and snaring are problematic, and is essential for the correct management of Britain's fox population. Again, we come up against the Minister's apparent disdain for and lack of interest in anything to do with conservation and a balanced environment. I should be grateful for his comments. 
 If terrier work is not allowed to be exempt hunting, half of Britain's gamekeepers will have to register to use their terriers. That will result in about 2,000 applications, every one of which will no doubt be contested by opponents of field sports with no guarantee that the registrar or the tribunal will accept them. Publication of the names of gamekeepers—

George Stevenson: Order. I am becoming concerned that the hon. Gentleman is straying from the amendments. Perhaps he would return to them.

Nicholas Soames: I will, indeed, Mr. Stevenson. Thank you for flagging that up. I merely wanted to draw the Committee's attention to the NGO's concerns about the amendment.
 There is a limit of two dogs if stalking or flushing is to qualify as exempt. That will prevent people from taking out a small pack of dogs to trap and kill foxes, mink and stoats. It will also make the use of dogs in the beating line on shoot days highly dangerous because, if several of them flush and chase a wild mammal, an offence could be committed. 
 To return to the specifics of the clause, it is frequent practice for a line of guns, beaters and dogs to walk through fields of cover, especially sugar beet, in search of game. It is not unusual, especially in areas where the hare population is high, for dogs to flush and chase a hare, even if their owners or handlers do not wish them to do so. It is a natural instinct of dogs to give chase. Furthermore, we return to the entirely innocuous practice of someone flushing hares with a dog to shoot it for the pot. 
 The question of grey squirrels also arises. The Minister is a known wildlife expert, so I should be grateful if he would tell me whether he knows the difference between a weasel and a stoat, how dogs are to be prevented from failing to do what they are told and chasing en masse after a weasel or stoat, and whether an offence will have been committed if that happens?

Rob Marris: I am following the hon. Gentleman closely. Is he suggesting that those who take dogs out hunting are often unable to control them? That seems to be his line of reasoning.

Nicholas Soames: No, I am not suggesting that, but every now and again it is impossible to stop a dog—perhaps a young dog who may be out with older dogs to learn—from running off in pursuit of an animal and other dogs perhaps rushing after it. That does happen. During a previous hunting Bill, the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) said that she had trained her terrier to chase only rabbits and not
 hares. That seemed unlikely, but I am sure that several old lags here remember that.
 The matter is important. I should be grateful if the Minister would acknowledge the weight and importance of the evidence provided by the National Gamekeepers Organisation, and note and try to understand its specific concern. When he responds, will he confirm that he understands the great importance of gamekeepers in the good order, management and proper balance of conservation in the countryside, and, therefore, the essential requirement that their job should not be made any more difficult than it already is?

James Gray: Before speaking to amendment No. 203, I want to say that I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said in explaining so well what is wrong with amendments No. 335 and 336.
 I want to pick up two points made by the hon. Member for West Lancashire. First, he said that dogs are never used for flushing hares and that that is always done by humans and should not be allowed. He is incorrect. Dogs are used extensively throughout East Anglia for flushing hares. One of the best ways of shooting hares is to use dogs to flush them. That is common practice and his statement was incorrect. 
 Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that he was keen that dogs should not be used to flush deer because that might put the deer into a state of disarray, which might make a clean shot difficult. There is some truth in that, which is why Conservative Members have made it clear that hunting a deer until it is at bay and then shooting it is by far the most humane way of dealing with it, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman will speak against that argument later this week. Using dogs to flush deer out of dense cover and then shooting them is the only way in which to deal with what can be a real pest in many forestry areas. One can shoot them cleanly in the highlands of Scotland because there are no trees, but many parts of England are heavily wooded. Many species of deer are a real pest, and the use of dogs to flush them out of such woodland seems the only practical method. I am not sure that the fact that they will get into some disarray is a good argument for not using that method. I hope that the Minister will support those remarks. 
 Amendment No. 203 is an exploratory amendment because the word ''cover'' as it appears in schedule 1 has not been defined. We want to find out precisely what the Minister has in mind by the word ''cover''. 
 At present, someone who uses dogs to flush out mammals in order to shoot them may only benefit from the exemption under the clause if the mammal is flushed out of cover. What is cover? If one sends dogs into a hollow tree or a bush, is that cover? Does it mean a ditch, long grass, a wood, or inside any free bush or undergrowth? How dense does the wood have to be? In any case, what difference would it make in terms of animal welfare whether the wild animals were roused from a grass field or thick brambles? 
 We need to know what ''cover'' means, and we need to know that the definition includes different types of cover in which a mammal might be found. If, for example, dogs were to flush a hare from a field with short grass, there would be no cover at all. The hare is sitting in the middle of the field, and the dogs would flush it out of the short grass towards a waiting gun at the edge of the field. Is that flushing it out of cover? 
 In order to achieve a defence under the exempt hunting provision, is it necessary to demonstrate that the quarry species was in deep cover, dense cover, partial cover or no cover at all? What is the definition of the word cover? The amendment is exploratory, and we hope that the Minister will be able to answer our points.

Alun Michael: I suppose that there is no harm in hoping.
 The hon. Gentleman poses some interesting questions, as did my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire when he moved his amendment. I hope that I can provide the clarification that hon. Members are looking for. First, I say to my hon. Friend that the word ''stalking'' has its ordinary English meaning; pursuing a wild mammal by a stealthy approach. For the purposes of the Bill, the term refers to stalking accompanied by dogs, because that is what the Bill deals with. ''Flushing out'' also has its ordinary English meaning. There is nothing special or specific in the way that the terms are used. 
 I understand concerns that there might be misinterpretation. I say to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that I understand the concerns of the National Gamekeepers Organisation. I shall continue to look carefully at the implications of the Bill and proposed amendments for its work. I have made that clear. 
 Amendment No. 335 would limit stalking to deer only. The general principle of the exemption in paragraph 1 of schedule 1 is to allow the stalking and flushing from cover of all wild mammals. Failure to comply with conditions of the exemption would give rise to a criminal offence under clause 1. The Bill is designed wherever possible to apply the same principles and approach to a variety of species and wild mammals. The exemption in paragraph 1 of schedule 1 is intended to make all stalking and flushing out subject to the identical stringent conditions. 
 I recognise the point that led my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire to move his amendment. Set alongside the stringent conditions that are required to be met to benefit from the exemption, I am not convinced that the stalking of all mammals except deer should be the subject of consideration by the registrar and the tribunal. The Deadline 2000 option in the previous hunting legislation contained exemptions for the stalking of fox and hare in addition to deer stalking. Such exemptions for stalking would have been subject to no restriction on the number of dogs that could be used. That contrasts with the present Bill, which goes further in imposing a limit of two dogs. Any person who wishes to stalk or flush out with more than two dogs must apply for registration, and 
 so show that the activity is the least cruel method of achieving necessary pest control. 
 I take a similar view of amendment No. 336. The flushing of foxes should remain exempt, but the flushing of any other wild mammal should be considered on a case-by-case basis by the registrar. If new species start to be the subject of new activities, the legislation is intended to be comprehensible and deal with such activities. 
 Amendment No. 203 seeks to change the definition of flushing out from ''flushing . . . out of cover'' to ''flushing''. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex for explaining that he is trying to flush out the precise meaning of the phrase. I am certainly happy to consider the usage further, but I believe that it is clear. The suggestion was that flushing out could be applied to an animal out in the open. If the animal is not in cover, it can hardly be flushed out. I would have thought that the common-sense usage and the meaning that we use in everyday language would apply, but I am happy to speak to our legal advisers and check whether that interpretation is correct. The amendment is potentially confusing. ''Flushing out'' and ''flushing out from cover'' are commonly used expressions. They are used in the Burns report. If the wording were restricted to ''flushing'', that could be considered to mean something different, which could lead to unintentional uncertainty. 
 I may have inadvertently left a ''not'' out of my comments on amendment No. 336, which may account for the fact that I saw a puzzled expression. I should have said that the activity of flushing foxes should remain exempt, but the flushing of any other wild mammal should not be considered on a case-by-case basis by the registrar. 
 I hope that I have responded to what I believe were, in both cases, attempts to clarify the language. I will consider the points further and if anything that I have said does not stand up following further legal advice, I will return to the hon. Members who have raised the points. I believe that the Bill is clear and I hope that, in the light of that, the amendments will not be pursued.

Colin Pickthall: In response to the criticism made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire—

James Gray: It was not criticism; it was a comment.

Colin Pickthall: Comment. If I said that hares were never flushed out by dogs, I did not mean to say that. Perhaps it would have been clearer had I said that it is not necessary for dogs to be used in the pursuit of hares in that way. In its evidence to the Burns inquiry, the Game Conservancy Trust gave quite a long description of hare shooting, which does not involve dogs at all. I was seeking to get at the necessity or otherwise of using dogs.
 My right hon. Friend the Minister's comments on the definitions of flushing out and, in particular, stalking were helpful. Does he share my concern that if the flushing out of deer with dogs, in whatever context, were exempt—as it would be under the Bill—that could lead to deer drives? Disorder could ensue if someone tried to shoot an animal that was running away from dogs. That would be difficult and possibly 
 dangerous. I would find deer driving especially unpleasant.

James Gray: Chasing the fox out of cover and shooting it while it is running away is precisely what a later amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) proposes.

Colin Pickthall: My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester will have every opportunity to convince me of the virtues of his amendments later. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister replied to my concern.

Alun Michael: I hope that I can satisfy my hon. Friend. Under paragraph 1(6), the deer must be shot ''as soon as possible'' after it is flushed out. Paragraph 1(4) limits the flushing to two dogs. The intention is to avoid the sort of problems that concern him.

Colin Pickthall: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Many of us on this side want to put belt and braces on many parts of the Bill. What I have proposed may well be covered by what he has said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

James Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 204, in
schedule 1, page 21, line 10, leave out 'would' and insert 'may'.

George Stevenson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendment No. 186. 
 Amendment No. 46, in 
schedule 1, page 21, line 13, at end insert— 
 '( ) to ground nesting birds,'.
 Amendment No. 47, in 
schedule 1, page 21, line 21, at end insert— 
 '( ) by the spread of disease,'.
 Amendment No. 48, in 
schedule 1, page 21, line 22, at end insert— 
 '( ) flushing birds from cover for sport, or 
 ( ) for the purposes of a field trial.'.

James Gray: Amendment No. 204 would delete ''would'' and insert ''may''. That is one of those little amendments that it is the Committee's business to consider, although it might not make the front page of tomorrow's newspapers. At the moment, under the utility test, dogs can be used if they would reduce the damage that the wild mammal may otherwise cause to various things. We suggest deleting the word ''may'' and inserting the word ''would'', so that the ''wild mammal would'' cause damage to trees, plants or something else.
 The proposal would to some extent lighten the burden of proof on the exempted person. As the Bill stands, he or she can use a dog or dogs to flush or stalk from cover if they can prove that the wild mammal being hunted ''would'' otherwise cause significant damage. It is impossible to prove that the animal ''would'' otherwise do that. It is impossible to prove what a wild animal intends to do at all. Imagine a court case at which someone had to stand up and try 
 to demonstrate that they had flushed a fox, hare or deer out of cover because they knew for sure and could prove that that fox, hare or deer was just about to turn round and eat a tree, or cause other damage as listed in the Bill. 
 It is not possible to prove that that would definitely be the case, so we seek to insert ''may'' instead of ''would''. Incidentally, I may have put those words the wrong way round a moment ago. For clarity, we seek to insert ''may'' rather than ''would''. I must say that I caught the civil servant's eye, and he was looking rather puzzled. I thought that I was talking sense, but clearly I was not. We would delete ''would'' and insert ''may'' because when flushing an animal out of cover, there is no way under the law that one can demonstrate for sure that the animal was definitely going to carry out damage. The amendment is very straightforward, and I hope that it will be acceptable to the Committee. 
 Amendment No. 47 would extend the definition of utility for exempted hunting to include 
''by the spread of disease''.
 It would allow us to use dogs for flushing to prevent the spread of disease. Two or three weeks ago, we had a useful debate on the terrible fox disease, mange. That is a desperately awful disease. The entire fox population of the city of Bristol was wiped out by mange some years ago, and that mange has now spread into the countryside. I understand that one third of foxes killed by many hunts—including the Beaufort hunt, close to Bristol—suffer from mange. It is a ghastly disease and can be passed to domestic animals and even human beings, creating an itchy scab. We should seek to limit that disease or get rid of it altogether. 
 In a bad case of mange, a fox can have more than 1 million mites under its skin, causing very severe irritation. The only way—or, at least, one of the best ways—to eradicate or control that nasty disease is by using dogs to flush foxes. It seems eminently sensible to add the prevention of the spread of disease to the utility tests allowable under the exemptions in schedule 1. 
 Amendment No. 48 seems rather more important than the first two, although they are relatively sensible and I hope that the Minister might consider accepting them. I shall speak slightly more substantially to this amendment, which would add to the list of utilities the two items 
''flushing birds from cover for sport''
 and 
''for the purposes of a field trial.''
 If we do not add those, there will be an inadvertent and sideways attack on two major aspects of rural life; shooting and field trials. Although nothing to do with hunting with dogs, those activities would be under attack if they were not included here. Much has already been said in the Committee about the Bill's unwarranted attack on shooting, which is possibly accidental. The National Gamekeepers Organisation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex said, is 
 extremely unhappy with the Bill's consequences for shooting and has said: 
''The NGO cannot understand how the Bill can be so badly drawn when, at the Minister's personal invitation, gamekeepers took immense care to brief him and his officials concerning the various uses that gamekeepers need to make of their dogs. The NGO was the only shooting body invited to give evidence to the Minister's public hearings''
 at Portcullis house 
''but its evidence has been almost totally ignored.''
 Under the Bill, shooters who inadvertently flushed a mammal from cover during a drive might be criminally liable. They might put the dogs in to put out pheasant and partridge. The Minister is always telling us that he is in favour of shooting, and he has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that the Labour party supports shooting; he made a speech at the Country Landowners Association game fair last year, for example. Some of us may doubt that, but he has gone to great lengths to say it. If dogs are put into cover to put out game—that is what one does when shooting pheasant and partridges—they might inadvertently flush not birds but hares or foxes to the waiting guns. The shooters would then technically be breaking the law. Amendment No. 48 would correct that. 
 The risk is especially great because the primary offence in the Bill does not require it to be shown that the accused had a specific intention to hunt. The Minister's use of the word ''intent'' this morning was very interesting. Under Pepper v. Hart, that statement will become extremely important when such matters are considered in court. He said that hunting meant having an intention to hunt wild animals. Under this part of the Bill, there is no requirement to show that the accused had an intention to hunt. If his dogs happened to hunt by mistake, the accused would be liable. The amendment would allow hares to be flushed and shot for sport. 
 Under certain Acts, hares are perceived as a traditional quarry species. The Night Poaching Act 1828 and the Game Act 1831 provided measures to protect the rights of landowners by requiring them to have game licences and prohibiting the poaching of hares. As such, hares are frequently shot for sport, having been flushed by dogs to guns. I made that point a moment ago to the hon. Member for West Lancashire, who is no longer in his place. Schedule 1 does not allow flushing hares for sport, unless the shooter can prove that the hare will otherwise cause serious environmental damage. The exemptions in schedule 1 will stop a large and significant shooting sport; the use of dogs to drive hares towards a waiting gun. 
 The hon. Member for West Lancashire at first did not seem to realise that that happened, and then, when I pointed out to him that it did, he said that he did not like it anyhow. He may not like it anyhow, but the Labour party has gone to some lengths to demonstrate that it is in favour of game shooting. Opposition Members have some doubt about that; we will believe it when we see it. None the less, the Minister has said that he greatly supports game shooting. The use of dogs to drive out game to shoot them—not only 
 winged game but hares—seems to us an important part of that sport. If the Minister does not accept the amendment relating to shooting, he will risk damaging the sport that he has so often and publicly said he supports. 
 The second part of the amendment deals with field trials, a rural activity that few people fully understand. I am probably one of them. In the old days, the Kennel Club used to be neutral on the subject of hunting, but in February 2001 it changed its position and is now committed to campaigning against a hunting ban, which is welcome. The legislation to ban hunting could render field trials illegal, which would be a devastating loss to the dog-owning and breeding world as, in addition to providing sport and enjoyment to many, they provide an essential means by which to assess dogs for breeding purposes. An analogy could be made with racing, where the parentage of thoroughbreds is a key indicator of the horse's likely ability and, hence, its value. 
 The Kennel Club is the official licenser of UK field trials and governs their judging. It licenses 620 field trials a year, which test about 3,000 dogs and involve about 6,000 participants. I have never been to field trials, but they are a major sport. As the Kennel Club's website states: 
''Field trials have developed to test the working ability of gundogs in competitive conditions. Trials resemble, as closely as possible, a day's shooting in the field and dogs are expected to work with all manner of game, from rabbits and hares, to partridges and pheasants. Field Trials are very popular, attract hundreds of competitors and are still very much part of our countryside sports. If you have a love and understanding of the countryside and like to see dogs working as they were intended to, this friendly and relaxed sport may be just what you are looking for.''

Hugo Swire: Does my hon. Friend agree that the financial implications for that part of the dog-breeding world would be huge, as field trials are the method by which, as he said, a dog's pedigree can be established and the puppies charged accordingly? As far as I am aware, there is no alternative to field trials for judging dogs in a competitive environment. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill would turn off the tap in terms of dog breeding, a point that the government have clearly not considered?

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and I shall support it by two further quotes from the Kennel Club, a widely respected organisation. In a press release dated 9 April 2001 it said:
''The Bill in its current form could have a severe effect on all dogs and dog owners. Furthermore, it could signal the end of field trials . . . Spaniel Trials and Hunt, Point, Retrieve trials would be the first affected since they consist directly of hunting a wild mammal with a dog.''
 In the Kennel Gazette it says: 
''The Kennel Club will do everything it can to prevent the United Kingdom, in future, from suffering from poorly drafted and increasingly draconian anti-dog legislation. The Kennel Club has become increasingly aware that the direction in which the [Hunting] Bill and its supporters appeared to be moving was becoming more and more dangerous to the future of dogs generally.''
 That is not from the Countryside Alliance but from the Kennel Club.

Edward Garnier: My hon. Friend is right to rely on the Kennel Club's concerns expressed in early 2001. Although at that stage the comments were directed at an earlier Bill, they translate just as cogently to the current Bill. I am glad that he has been able to draw them to our attention.

James Gray: I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for pointing that out. As he says, those comments refer to the earlier Bill. They apply just as much to this Bill because, unless field trials are included in the exemptions in schedule 1, it would mean the end of field trials.
 Unlike amendment No. 48, the amendments are not difficult or controversial. To us they seem to be reasonably easy and support something to which the Labour party has made a very firm commitment; namely, supporting the sport of shooting. Field trials are central to that, as is flushing birds and other animals from cover for sport. The amendments are more technical than controversial. I hope that they are sensible and that the Minister will accept them.

Nicholas Soames: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire on these points. The amendments are technical but they are, nevertheless, extremely important. I am grateful for the Minister's serious response to the point that the NGO made. I make the important point to him that field trials—I know a bit about them because I have often participated in them—are an important part of the fabric of country life. In many ways they are linked to a keeper's dog.
 Many keepers have dogs that they run in field trials. The dogs are bred for, and used, in extremely competitive situations against other dog handlers to show the brilliance and skill of both the handler and dog in retrieving game under difficult conditions. It is not a well-known sport but it takes place all over the country. As my hon. Friend said, there are 620 field trials per year involving about 6,000 people. I would hazard a guess that there are many more than that. Many people closely follow those trials with pleasure. They see the results of these field trials as well as Labradors, spaniels and others.

Hugo Swire: Can my hon. Friend think of an alternative way to conduct a field trial without using live game?

Nicholas Soames: No, I cannot. When training dogs, hand-thrown dummies can be used, but that would be much the same as drag hunting. It is not the real thing at all. It certainly would not provide anything like the competitive difference or the realistic situation for which these dogs are very highly trained.
 The issue comes back to the submissions from not only the Kennel Club but also the National Gamekeepers Organisation. If the Minister is serious about his support for shooting—the Government's increasingly desperate assurances are increasingly disbelieved in the countryside—I hope that he does not intend to get caught up in this mean, shallow and scabby little proposal on field trials. It should have no part to play in a Bill such as this. Under the legislation, as it is drafted, field trials would be caught. I should be grateful for his comments.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates his lack of sympathy for the Bill and his failure to see it as an objective attempt to deal with a very serious issue that Parliament has had before it on a number of occasions. That is an expression of prejudice on his part.
 Regarding amendment No. 204, stalking and flushing out is not hunting, subject to certain conditions. To make it clear, the first condition is that the activity is undertaken for certain specified purposes, such as the protection of livestock or crops. The conditions are the same as the pest control purposes set out in the utility test in clause 8(1), with the addition of the purpose of obtaining meat to be used for human or animal consumption. 
 To benefit from the exemption, an individual would need to show that he or she was engaging in stalking or flushing out for the purpose of preventing or reducing serious damage, which the wild mammal would otherwise cause to livestock or crops. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire made it clear that amendment No. 204 would require a person to show that they were stalking and flushing out only because wild mammals may cause damage to livestock or crops, thus making the requirement vague and weak. 
 An individual would be required to demonstrate only that there was a possibility that the wild mammals might cause damage, rather than that the consequence of their activity would be serious damage. As a result, the standard of the pest control test for purposes of registering exempt hunting would become inconsistent, and that would not make good law.

James Gray: I am puzzled by the Minister's comment that ''may cause damage'' would be weak, as opposed to ''would cause damage''. I fail to understand how one could demonstrate in a court of law with any degree of certainty that a fox or deer would cause damage. By what means would that be proved? Surely, ''may cause damage'' is all that can be proven.

Alun Michael: No. Several organisations give very careful consideration via management groups and so on to the number of deer that can be tolerated in an area. Too many deer would put excessive pressure on crops. That is an example of the sort of evidence that would make sense. The test requires a degree of predictability and certainty, whereas the amendment would open it to vague interpretations of the impact that would justify the activity, thus making it meaningless.

Rob Marris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that ''would'' suggests a probability, whereas ''may'' suggests a possibility? In other words, ''would'' suggests above 50 per cent., although not 99 per cent., whereas ''may'' suggests below 50 per cent.

Alun Michael: I am not sure that I would necessarily want to put figures on it, but I agree with my hon. Friend's point.
 Government amendment No. 186 is consequential to Government amendment No. 185, which added wild birds to clause 8 and which was accepted by the Committee. I resist amendment No. 46, which is 
 consequential to an earlier amendment that proposed a change to the utility test in clause 8(1). It was tabled and withdrawn by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. As such, I assume that he will not be pursuing it and that I do not need to dwell on it. 
 Amendment No. 47 would extend the purposes for stalking and flushing out to include preventing the spread of disease, but there is no need for such a change as powers already exist under sections 19 and 21 of the Animal Health Act 1981 for the Secretary of State to make an order for disease control purposes. Such an order would authorise for use in a specified area methods of destroying foxes and other wild mammals that would otherwise be unlawful. 
 The hon. Gentleman's point about disease control is entirely serious, but the matter is already dealt with in legislation. Furthermore, it is hard to envisage circumstances in which the activity of chasing wild mammals with dogs around the countryside would prevent the spread of disease. 
 Amendment No. 48 seeks to include flushing birds from cover for sport as an additional purpose for which stalking or flushing out would be allowed. It is not necessary, because birds are not wild mammals. The Bill concerns the hunting of wild mammals with dogs and makes such hunting an offence unless it is registered or exempt. 
 Amendment No. 48 would make using dogs to flush birds from cover an exemption under schedule 1, but using dogs for flushing birds from cover is not an offence under the Bill. Therefore, no exemption for the activity is required. If the hon. Gentleman was seeking that clarification and confirmation by tabling the amendment, I am happy to give it.

James Gray: No, I was seeking clarification about the use of dogs for flushing other mammals such as hares.

Alun Michael: I shall come on to that. A person is hunting a wild mammal with a dog if they engage or participate in the pursuit of a wild mammal. I refer hon. Members to the definition in clause 45(2); I am sure that we will spend a little time on that in due course. If dogs are used to flush birds to guns and a wild mammal is put up and shot, that will not be an offence because there was no intention of pursuing, and so hunting, that wild mammal. As I said earlier, one cannot hunt by accident.
 Amendment No. 48 would include the purpose of a field trial. The point made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire relates to the second part of the amendment, which deals with hares and rabbits. I am happy to join the general praise of the work of the Kennel Club, which I visited last year. I greatly value its work. The Kennel Club wrote to me on 16 July in response to my consultation letter of 31 May. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough for making a point that I would have made: namely, that in that letter, the Kennel Club was addressing the previous Bill—the Deadline 2000 Bill—which was before the House during the previous Parliament, rather than this Bill, which had not been drafted or presented to the House. 
 The Kennel Club has raised the issue of field trials and I have carefully considered its representations. The Kennel Club's regulations for field trials state that a field trial is a meeting for the purpose of holding competitions to assess the work of gun dogs in the field, with dogs working on live, unhandled game, and where game may be shot. The Kennel Club licenses some 600 field trials every year. The purpose is to enable dogs to be tested under competitive conditions. Matters covered can include locating birds and ground game—hares and rabbits—and instinct when retrieving shot game to hand. 
 It is difficult to find a way of avoiding the registration of field trials in relation to hares, because that would be inconsistent with the purposes for which the hunting of hares is allowed under the Bill. Of course, hunting rabbits is exempt and therefore the problem does not arise. I can assure hon. Members that I have considered the point. The trials must be treated in the same way as hunting in general. That means that rabbits fall on one side of the divide and registration is not required and that, in relation to hares, the same requirements apply to trials as they do to hunting.

Nicholas Soames: Will the Minister clarify one point? If someone were out walking with a couple of dogs and put up a hare and shot it, would that be caught by the Bill?

Alun Michael: I am not sure about the detailed circumstances that the hon. Gentleman mentions. If the walker was simply walking in the countryside with no intention—

James Gray: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex made an extremely good point. The answer that the Minister is about to give us—civil servants have just handed it to him—is that that is okay if there are two dogs. However, we are talking about circumstances in which more than two dogs flush a hare that is then shot. Would the walker be criminally liable if that were the case?

Alun Michael: The point comes back to intent. The hon. Gentleman will recall the discussions that the Committee had on a previous occasion. The law is quite clear about intent. If someone is simply walking—not hunting or seeking to flush out—and their dogs happen to put up an animal, that person is not engaged in hunting. I would have to seek legal advice about what would happen if the individual changed from being an ordinary walker by engaging in a certain activity.

Nicholas Soames: I am clear on that point; the Minister has answered my question. However, I am not quite sure what he said about field trials. I did not hear properly what he said. Is he saying that field trials will be caught by the legislation, and that those people who run the national north-west Labrador club will have to apply for a licence to have a field trial?

Alun Michael: My understanding of the situation is as follows. In relation to game birds, no registration is necessary because such activities are not caught by the Bill. The hunting of rabbits in trials is exempt, so registration would not have to be applied for. The hunting of hares would be caught by the Bill because
 the activity is the same whether it is for the purposes of hunting or trials.

Nicholas Soames: I think that the Minister is making a manful effort to clarify the situation, and we are almost there. The matter is extremely important to the people who run the field trials and those who take part in them. Will the Minister clarify the matter by returning to the Committee with a clearly thought out position?

Alun Michael: I think I have made the position absolutely clear. If I receive any advice that I have inadvertently missed something out, I shall happily return to the Committee with it. I am always willing to be put right about things, which is just as well because I have experience of it. I have clearly explained the position. As the Bill progresses, I would be equally happy further to clarify the situation to the Kennel Club, which the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex implied might be helpful.

Edward Garnier: I want to make one or two brief remarks, provoked by what the Minister has said. As far as I am concerned, field trials concern retrieving game, rather than flushing out and hunting game. No doubt during the course of his consultations this afternoon, the Minister will be able to get better details on that.

Alun Michael: The hon. and learned Gentleman may be responding to a slightly different point from the one I made. If the activity is covered by the Bill, the requirements of the Bill must be followed. If an activity is not covered, such as the retrieval of game birds, it does not need to be registered because it is not caught by the Bill. Activities within the trials are treated in the same way as those outwith the trials.

Edward Garnier: I want to turn to another aspect of the Minister's remarks. Looseness of language has led to confusion in my mind. Paragraph 1(2)(a) talks about flushing out that is undertaken for the purpose of
''preventing or reducing serious damage which the wild mammal would otherwise cause''.
 That is followed by a list of subjects to which that damage could be caused. One cannot consider paragraph 1(2) without looking at paragraph 1(1), which states: 
''Stalking a wild mammal, or flushing it out of cover, is exempt hunting if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied.''
 From time to time, the Minister described a species of wild mammal, and then talked about that particular group in the plural. Sometimes he spoke of ''rabbits'', and sometimes ''a rabbit'', or ''a hare''. I need to be sure what those paragraphs mean. When the schedule refers to ''stalking a wild mammal'', is it referring to stalking a species of wild mammal or to a particular, individual quadruped? When paragraph (2)(a) says 
''preventing or reducing serious damage which the wild mammal would otherwise cause'',
 is it talking about that breed of quadruped or about an identifiable individual beast? Unless we are sure what the schedule and sub-paragraphs 1(1) and (2) intend, we may get into all sorts of trouble, not least in regard 
 to the requirement on the potential defendant to demonstrate that the animal which has emerged out of the cover and which his dogs are in pursuit of is the one that he went in to get; or does it not matter and, so long as the defendant goes into the wood or the field to stalk hares, foxes or whatever it is, he can find whichever one he likes? There is a legitimate area of concern here, which is caused by a loose use of language.

Rob Marris: I see the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. As for the loose use of language, not all wild mammals are quadrupeds.

Edward Garnier: The hon. Gentleman is an exact person. I am not an expert on which mammals are not quadrupeds. [Interruption.] I am hearing from a sedentary position—

George Stevenson: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is in danger of trying to emulate a certain well-known television presenter and a certain popular television programme.

Edward Garnier: I am afraid, Mr. Stevenson, that you have lost me there. I am not sure—

Peter Luff: The record should show that the mammals in question are bats. The thought of bat hounds running would challenge anyone.

Edward Garnier: I think I heard the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) say that bats were mammals—

Rob Marris: But not quadrupeds.

Edward Garnier: But not quadrupeds. He is perfectly right, but I have a suspicion that even this Government and even this Minister did not envisage, when they drafted paragraph 1(1), which begins with the words ''Stalking a wild mammal'', that they would outlaw the setting of dogs after bats. I may have completely underestimated the Government's ingenuity—or they may be completely bats.

Alun Michael: The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be entering into the spirit of this afternoon with his last remark, but I reassure the Committee that this is not the hunting with flying squirrels Bill but a Bill that relates to hunting with dogs.
 The description of field trials, which informs my response to the debate, includes testing the hunting instincts as well as the locating and retrieval instincts to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. Do the field trials involve activity that is specifically caught by the Bill? If so, the requirements are the same as if the activity were taking place outwith a trial. Therefore, registration is not required for the pursuit of rabbits, nor for trials in that event, or for the retrieval of birds that have been shot. The retrieval of hares is covered by paragraph 4 of the schedule. I have probably covered the range of possibilities.

Edward Garnier: The Minister may have dealt with this question. A moment ago, he was talking about the retrieval of hares, but how would he deal with a field trial in which pointers are tested?

Alun Michael: Pointing is not hunting and would not therefore be caught by the Bill. I have not dealt
 with that point before and am happy to deal with it now. The Bill does not catch pointing and there is no requirement in relation to a trial. I hope that that covers the matter.
Gregory Barker rose—

Alun Michael: I was over-optimistic.

Gregory Barker: As I understand it, rabbits will not be covered by the Bill but hares will. What is the underlying animal welfare principle that says that one can use rabbits but not hares? What does that have to do with animal welfare?

Alun Michael: I appreciate that point, but we will consider the issue of what is or is not dealt with under the Bill when we reach the relevant clauses. My point is that if an activity is caught under the Bill, the trials to which a number of hon. Members have referred would be subject to controls. If the Bill does not cover an animal, the trials will not be subject to controls. There is no doubt about the situation on trials.

Hugo Swire: If field trials have to apply for a licence to flush a hare, which involves pursuing a mammal, it would apply to all shooters.

Alun Michael: No. That is not the case. The distinctions in the Bill are clear. I do not want to incur your wrath, Mr. Stevenson, by going into situations that we will debate under a variety of other clauses, but what is caught under the Bill is caught under the Bill whether it is within a trial or not. There are no additional requirements on trials in addition to the requirements in the Bill in relation to particular activities.

James Gray: I am muddled on the question of the flushing of hares. Under the exemptions in clause 1(1), the flushing of hares to waiting guns is exempt, and nothing that the Minister has said in the course of the debate has changed that position. I accept his point about field trials and shot game being picked up. He is right to say that it is unlikely that there would be any recourse to the registrar even if hares were involved because the hares would either be dead or wounded, in which case they would be exempt under subsection (4).
 I welcome Government amendment No. 186, which concerns ground-nesting birds. It was inspired by our amendment No. 46, which we tabled to protect them. It is a shame that the Minister will not change ''would'' to ''may''. That is, however, a small point and, for the sake of making good progress through the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 186, in schedule 1, page 21, line 12, after 'birds', insert 'or wild birds'.—[Alun Michael.]

James Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in
schedule 1, page 21, line 30, leave out 'two' and insert 'forty'.

George Stevenson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 296, in 
schedule 1, page 21, line 30, after 'dogs', insert 
 ', unless for the purposes of training a dog in connection with the use of raptors to hunt, or during field trials conducted according to Kennel Club rules'.
 Amendment No. 347, in 
schedule 1, page 23, line 30, at end insert— 
 '(8) The seventh condition is that the hunting does not involve the use of more than two dogs'.

James Gray: Occasionally, one glances at the amendment paper, sees that one has proposed a particular amendment and thinks, ''What on earth did I propose that for?'' Amendment No. 49 comes into that category, and I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, who smelled a bit of sport. I have no clue why we tabled that amendment because it was not what we intended and there may have been a transposition of numbers.
 On amendment No. 50, the use of two dogs for flushing wild mammals out to waiting guns is exempt. The amendment would delete ''two'' and replace it with ''forty'' and the Minister and Labour Members will not be entirely happy with that. They have the happy image of one gamekeeper going out with just two dogs to flush game out to his waiting gun. They think that is hunky dory and different from people using a large number of dogs, which they perceive as being toffee-nosed and which they want to do away with. We are discussing what is best for deer from the animal welfare standpoint, not human activity. We are discussing dealing with pests that are included among the exemptions in paragraph 1 of schedule 1. Restricting the number of dogs to only two is both impractical in animal welfare terms and mean-spirited. 
 The purpose of using dogs is to drive the mammal to waiting guns and for the mammal to be dispatched as quickly and cleanly as possible by the waiting guns. If two dogs are put into large cover—in Wales that may be many hundreds of acres of woods—not only would the game not come out, but the two dogs would probably not come out because they could easily be lost sight of. In large cover the use of a reasonable number of dogs to drive game out to waiting guns is sensible and there are no animal welfare downsides in doing so. The mammal being flushed out by dogs would not look around and say, ''Goodness me, there are only two dogs; that's not so bad. Just last week there were as many as 40 dogs.'' I am not convinced that there is any difference.

Rob Marris: If there are no animal welfare downsides, why cannot an individual with his or her 40 dogs simply register?

James Gray: He could, of course, register, but that is for the purpose of hunting—pursuing, catching and killing a mammal using dogs—which the hon. Gentleman is so much opposed to. We are not discussing hunting; we are discussing flushing an animal out of cover to be shot by a waiting gun as soon as it comes out from cover. That is the purpose of the exemption. We are not discussing registered hunting; we are discussing exemptions. I thought the hon. Gentleman had caught up with that.
 Our argument is that the use of just one or two dogs to flush game out of cover to a waiting gun is insufficient and that the use of 20, 30 or 40 dogs would 
 not make the position of the mammal worse from the animal welfare standpoint.

Mike Hall: I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, but if an individual wanted to flush out game with 40 dogs he could apply to register under the Bill.

James Gray: He could not, because under the Bill people must register if they want to hunt using dogs. If they want to set dogs on to a prey and the dogs then chase the prey and kill it, that is hunting as defined by the Bill and something for which people must register. We are not discussing registration. We are discussing a technical term-—exemptions—which is quite different from registration. People must register if they want to hunt and kill. We are discussing exemptions, which are not registered. In one case a dog is used to kill the animal and in the other a gun is used to kill it. I hope that that is clear, but I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman understood that. The question is whether it is practical and sensible to flush an animal out to a gun using only two dogs or whether it would be better to use 40 dogs.

Alun Michael: The question put to the hon. Gentleman by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) was correct. An individual or group could make an application to be registered under the Bill, instead of our making an amendment to it, as the hon. Gentleman proposes.

James Gray: He could do so, but the whole point of exemption is that there are all sorts of legitimate uses of dogs that the Minister does not want to be trapped in the Bill. That is why he tabled the exemptions schedule. We do not want all sorts of sensible, legitimate activities in the countryside to go to the registrar, and one of those is shooting. If the Minister is simply saying that anyone could apply to the registrar and seek registration, he is right, but he would be wrapping everybody in the countryside into a Bill designed to prevent the hunting of a mammal using dogs rather than flushing it out for shooting. As I understand it, the purpose of the exemptions schedule is to prevent that being caught up inadvertently in the Bill.
 In a day's shooting there may be 10 guns, each with a dog, walking through a piece of wood and 10 gamekeepers or beaters walking in a different direction. People could be walking through the wood in all sorts of ways, each with at least one and often two dogs. I have seen maybe 20 or 30 dogs involved in a day's shooting, so that would not be surprising. Under the Bill, a shoot with 20 or 30 dogs flushing animals out of cover would require registration. That is contrary to what Labour party members have been saying about the sport of shooting. It just shows that they have not been to many shoots. At many shoots—every shoot—more than two dogs will be used for the flushing of animals. I cannot think of any shoot where they are not. 
 If the Minister is saying that the presence of 20 or 30 dogs at a shoot means that the shoot must apply for 
 registration, all shooting in the United Kingdom, just as much as all hunting, will have to apply for registration. I am sure that that is not his intention. He has gone to great lengths to say that shooting is exempt. However, if the schedule is taken at face value, if 20 or 30 dogs were present at a shoot on a certain day, then the shoot would have to apply for registration. I very much hope that the piece of paper that the civil servants have immediately passed to the Minister will enable him to clarify that that is not his intention and that shooting will be exempt, which is the purpose of the schedule. If he cannot, he will send out an extremely worrying signal to most of the nation. 
 Our argument is that by deleting ''two'' and inserting ''forty'' we are achieving precisely what the Minister wants and what the rest of the Bill achieves, which is a ban on hunting with dogs. This part of the Bill is designed to exempt activities that the Minister goes to great lengths to say are legitimate, such as shooting. We therefore believe that we are helping him out. We are saving his beloved sport of game shooting, which he says he loves. If he does not accept our amendment, there is a risk that most shoots in the United Kingdom will inadvertently be included in his rotten little Bill.

Edward Garnier: I want to make a brief observation in relation to amendment No. 50 and sub-paragraph 1(4). I suspect that the Minister is terrified that if the limit on two dogs is not included in the Bill, there will be an attempt to get around the registration rules, and people with packs of hounds or dogs will do what they should not be doing. However, it looks as though the Minister is wholly ignorant of what takes place on a shoot when game is stalked or flushed out of cover. I suspect that he should be saying:
''The third condition is that the stalking or flushing out does not involve the use of more than two dogs''
 under the control of an individual. That is very socialist: we must not have more than two dogs because that is extremely greedy. I suspect that the Minister is trying to limit the number of dogs under the control of an individual, so that a person cannot be in charge of a pack of 20, 40 or 60 hounds. If that is what he is after, he has gone about it in a rather cack-handed way. 
 If I am right about that, I still believe that this aspect of the Bill is unreasonable. Why should a gamekeeper, or someone who wants to go shooting or to flush out of cover or stalk a wild animal for perfectly good animal welfare reasons or for the reasons set out in paragraph (2), not own more than two dogs and exercise them in that activity?

Hugo Swire: My hon. and learned Friend will I am sure agree that many gamekeepers often have more than two or three dogs, including old and middle-aged dogs and younger ones that they are bringing in. They often like to take them all out, and either hold some back or use them all together to train the young ones. They have a choice, which this measure would remove.

Edward Garnier: That is quite like the Committee stage of a Bill.

James Gray: You old dog.

Edward Garnier: Sometimes I feel like an older dog than I perhaps should.
 I think that I have made my point. If I understand the Minister's objective, he is using the wrong mechanism to achieve it. I have a suspicion that whatever his intention, it is not worthy. We should examine the proposal carefully.

Rob Marris: I rise again to point out that, although we are talking about practicalities, Opposition Members should read the Bill, especially paragraph 1(6) of schedule 1. I am not as well versed in matters of the countryside as many other Members here, but it seems to me extraordinary to suggest, as Opposition Members seem to, that paragraph 1(6) could be complied with by one person and 40 dogs. That is especially extraordinary in the light of what the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex said earlier. When I intervened on him, he conceded that dogs can get out of control. There is an exponential law here: it is more than twice as difficult to keep two dogs under control than one dog. By the time we have got to 40 dogs, I do not see how paragraph 1(6) could possibly be complied with.

James Gray: The measure does not say that the dogs should be under the control of one person. I described a situation in which 40 dogs were controlled by, perhaps, 20 people. Each person would have control of two dogs, but we are here talking about the total number of dogs.

Paul Holmes: As this is the first time that I have spoken, may I thank you for the very efficient and fair way in which you are chairing the Committee, Mr. Stevenson?
 I speak to amendment No. 347. Schedule 1 sets out classes of hunting exempt from the registration requirement. The exemptions in paragraph 7 involve the rescue of a wild mammal that is ''diseased or injured''. On the face of it, it is hard to understand how hunting a wild mammal can lead to its rescue. The answer lies partly in the definition of hunting in clause 45(2), which refers to the 
''pursuit of a wild mammal''.
 Pursuit, for the purposes of paragraph 7 of schedule 1, could therefore be to locate or flush out an injured or diseased animal to trap it, treat it and eventually release it. It could also be to kill the animal in order to relieve its suffering, if that is deemed ''appropriate action'', as mentioned in schedule 1(7)(6)(a). There seems to be an omission in the conditions in paragraph 7 for such cases, as it fails to impose a limit of two dogs when locating and flushing out the injured or diseased animal. 
 The desirability of restricting the locating and flushing of injured or diseased animals to one or two dogs seems self-evident. A pack of 40 hounds cannot be kept under the same close control as one or two dogs. Members have argued today that up to one third of the foxes killed by hunts are caught almost as soon as the hounds put them up. Autopsy evidence on foxes killed by hunts, submitted to the Burns inquiry, shows that many of those foxes are not killed by a clean bite on the back of the neck.

Edward Garnier: I do not want to stop the hon. Gentleman in mid flow, but can he explain the difference between his amendment and paragraph 1(4) of schedule 1? Will he also bear in mind the fact that the hounds involved are pack animals, whereas we have been talking about gamekeepers with spaniels or Labradors, for example. They do not hunt in packs, as do hounds. Therefore, to say that one cannot control a pack of 40 hounds may or may not be true. I suspect that it is not true. However, we are not talking about 40 Labradors.

Paul Holmes: This is an issue on which the Minister may tell me that paragraph 7 is covered by paragraph 1(4). It is an idea worth exploring because of the different wording of the paragraphs.
 Paragraph 1 is concerned with the control of stalking or flushing a wild mammal out of cover. Paragraph 7 is concerned with the hunting or pursuit of a wild mammal, not just flushing it out. The difference in the introductory intent of the two paragraphs could mean that paragraph 1 does not apply to paragraph 7. The Minister, however, might reassure me that it does. In that case, my amendment would not need to be pressed. 
 The point is self-evident in terms of packs of hounds, assuming that 40 Labradors would need to be controlled by 40 separate gamekeepers or dog owners in the pursuit of one injured or diseased animal. Paragraph 7 is not concerned with the generality of hunting with dogs or flushing out for shooting. It is specifically concerned with the rescue of diseased or injured animals. That is very different from all the other circumstances we have mentioned in the last few days.

Hugo Swire: If the hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about the welfare of a wounded animal, does he agree that a person trying to pursue the wounded animal in order to dispatch it swiftly and humanely should have the flexibility of using more than two dogs in an area that might cover many hundred hectares?

Paul Holmes: I would agree with the hon. Gentleman, if using more than two dogs were an efficient and humane way of locating an injured or diseased animal. [Interruption.] As for a huge wood, the purpose of paragraph 7 is not to hunt or kill the animal immediately. It is concerned with the ''rescue'' of a diseased or injured animal. That presupposes that when one has located the animal, and presumably humanely trapped it, one would then make an assessment of its condition to ascertain, in the terms described in paragraph 7, whether it should be treated and then released, or if the appropriate treatment would be to kill it. I do not see how that can be done with a pack of 40 hounds.

Nicholas Soames: Would the hon. Gentleman describe to the Committee the circumstances in which this would happen? What are the animals being rescued from? Where are they going? What animals does he have in mind?

Paul Holmes: As I said in my opening comments, it is difficult to imagine, in terms of paragraph 7, how one can use hunting dogs to rescue injured or diseased animals. I am trying to tighten up what I perceive could be a loophole in paragraph 7. Using packs of animals to rescue injured animals is not appropriate.

Lembit Öpik: I apologise to the Committee for not being in my place earlier, but the Northern Ireland Grand Committee is meeting as well, due to the crazy hours we have to work.
 The provision does not apply simply to taking an animal to an animal hospital or Rolf Harris. One might have to kill an animal because it is in pain. It might be helpful to have more than two dogs to do that.

Paul Holmes: With respect to my hon. Friend, I have already covered those points. If one tries to locate, trap and assess the condition of a diseased or injured animal, under paragraph 7, I fail to see how hunting with a pack of 40 hounds would allow one to assess an animal's condition before it is killed.

Hugo Swire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Holmes: Not now.
 We have heard that up to one third of foxes are killed almost immediately when hounds catch up with them. In that situation, I do not see how one could use a pack of hounds to catch a diseased or injured animal and then stop the hounds to assess whether it should be treated and released—Rolf Harris or not—or dispatched there and then, for its own good. That would not be possible with a pack of 40 hounds, which would kill one third of all foxes immediately. The autopsy evidence submitted to the Burns inquiry shows that the huntsman usually cannot control the hounds at the point of capture of a fox. The fox is then, in the words of the Burns inquiry, ''often disembowelled'' by the pack of hounds. One could hardly, after that process, assess the animal to see whether it should be treated and released back into the wild or dispatched. It would have already been dispatched at that point.

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman is being far from clear. Does he not accept that, in some instances, an animal would be so obviously wounded that, from an animal welfare point of view, the most humane thing that one could do would be to pursue and locate the animal as quickly as possible and dispatch it? It does not need any psychiatric treatment, counselling or assessment. It needs to be killed, and the person tasked with doing that must be given the flexibility to use as many dogs as necessary.

Paul Holmes: I accept most of what the hon. Gentleman said, but I do not accept that using packs of hounds is the most efficient or humane way of achieving the purpose. For example, it would be far more efficient to shoot an injured animal. As the Burns inquiry indicated, there is general agreement that the most humane way of killing a fox is by lamping with a high-powered rifle. I do not understand how a genuine wish to assess an animal's injury or disease can be achieved by hunting with hounds, over which one may lose control, even if it is allowed in paragraph 7.
 A pack of hounds is indiscriminate. If hounds are put into a wood or other terrain to look for a particular animal, they will take up the scent of the first animal that they come across. They will not decide to chase only foxes that are ill. They cannot discriminate in that way, whereas a stalker with a gun can or, if an animal is trapped humanely, like the 9,000 foxes caught in London last year, one can decide to dispatch them in a humane way. 
 In one is pursuing an injured or diseased animal with a pack of hounds, it is unlikely that the animal will escape long enough to allow an assessment of its condition. It is more likely that the hounds will catch it fairly quickly once they put it up and kill it on the spot. The purpose of paragraph 7 is, supposedly, to allow for the assessment of injured and diseased animals before a decision is made on the appropriate course of action. That cannot be done with hounds, although the use of one or two dogs to locate or to flush might be feasible. 
 We have heard a great deal about mange. Unless controlled, a pack of hounds pursuing such cases would be undesirable. We heard in previous sittings that a supposed virtue of hunting with hounds is not so much that they catch and kill all the foxes, pests or not, but that they scatter concentrations of them. Far from containing a serious outbreak of mange, which is supposedly the purpose, hunting using a pack of hounds and scattering the fox population would actually spread the disease to other areas. 
 A limit of one or two dogs is imposed elsewhere in the Bill. The Minister may be able to assure me that the two-dog limitation in paragraph 1 also applies to paragraph 7, which deals with the rescue of injured and diseased animals. In that case, there would be no need to press my amendment. However, if there is a need to press it, may I ask that it be treated separately from amendments Nos. 50 and 296?

Peter Luff: Having heard those remarks, I rather wish that the Duke of Devonshire had stood for Chesterfield at the last election. He knew something about hunting, whereas the speech of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) portrayed considerable ignorance about the realities of many aspects of it.
 My daughter and son had comfort blankets—one had a muslin cloth and the other had a duvet. The anti-hunting side also has comfort blankets, which they call drag hunting and lamping with a rifle. They countermand all the problems of hunting with their comfort blankets, which are not the solutions or panaceas that they think. I remind the hon. Member for Chesterfield that many of the animals that are described in paragraph 7 will have been the victims of poor shooting. He should reflect on that carefully. 
 I am not sure whether I heard my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire justify the number 40 in his amendment No. 50. I am interested in hearing why he chose that particular number, but, clearly, it is important that more than two dogs are permitted. It is perfectly possible for someone to keep more than two dogs under close control. I have been out shooting and have seen a gamekeeper keep five springer spaniels under extremely close control. The idea that somebody 
 can control only two dogs is simply wrong because one can easily control five. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire is right that there is nothing in the schedule, or the clause that predates it, about one person controlling 40 dogs. We are talking about a number of people controlling a number of dogs. As I read the schedule, it refers to the total number of dogs being used in an activity, which is what matters. 
 The Minister has indicated that he has no wish to penalise gamekeepers, to whom he has sent generous letters and with whom he has had meetings. Gamekeepers are clear that amendment No. 50 is important because unless it is included they will be unable to take out the small packs of dogs that are needed to catch foxes, minks and stoats. He may not look favourably at the absolute number of 40 dogs—he may say that 20 is more like it—but he must accept that two is not enough. A limit of two dogs will be prejudicial against shooting. 
 I am not an expert on falconry, but no one has spoken to amendment No. 296, which deals with it. I will not repeat the arguments about field trials because my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire has made those points very well, although they would stand repetition under this group of amendments. We will take what he said as read and hope that members of the Committee understand that his remarks also refer to amendment No. 296. 
 I am advised that there is an important practical point in relation to falconry. Apparently, falconers use dogs to seek, to point and to flush quarry such as rabbits, hares, grouse and pheasants from cover. Young dogs are initially trained without a hawk to allow a falconer to concentrate on the dogs. For example, two mature cocker spaniels will be run with a third immature cocker to encourage energy and enthusiasm, to demonstrate how to flush quarry from cover and to obey the falconer's commands. Flushing without a hawk will not fall under the falconry exemption in paragraph 5 of the schedule. If the provision for two dogs stands, falconers will find it difficult to train their new dogs. I hope that the Minister will take that technical and practical point seriously. He may have received contrary advice, but it sounds plausible to me. 
 I remind the Committee that controlling a large number of dogs is perfectly possible. Some of the most interesting evidence that we heard in the Portcullis house hearings came from the hunt saboteur Mike Huskisson, who made it clear that when hunt saboteurs turn up at a hunt they do not find much to complain about because the dogs are perfectly controlled by the hunt servants. In other words, inspection works and it is possible to control large numbers of dogs. Those who think otherwise do not understand how hunting works in the countryside. However, I hope that the point on falconry will commend itself to the Minister.

Alun Michael: I shall reflect on the falconry point. I believe that it was taken into account when we drafted the Bill, but I shall seek to ensure that it is addressed.
 Some of the confusion goes back to a lack of clarity about the quarry and the intention when a particular activity is undertaken. Shooting events in which more than two dogs are used to flush out—that is to hunt—wild mammals would be subject to registration under the Bill. That would not apply to shooting events in which a number of dogs are used to flush out game birds. That distinction makes it clear whether a particular activity is caught by the intentions in the Bill. If a person wishes to use more than two dogs to stalk or flush out a mammal, they should apply for registration. Stalking and flushing out mammals are types of hunting and are therefore covered by the Bill. The definition in clause 45(2) refers to the pursuit of a wild mammal and would apply to any use of a dog to pursue a mammal. The exemptions in schedule 1 are exemptions from the requirement for registration. They have been carefully drawn to allow necessary activities while not being open to abuse.

James Gray: The Minister is now being extremely clear. He is saying that the use of dogs to flush out birds for the purpose of shooting them is exempt. The use of dogs to flush out animals to be shot is not exempt because it would require a licence. That is devastating news for the shooting community in the United Kingdom, which uses dogs to flush all kinds of game to waiting guns. The Minister is now saying that at least part of the sport of shooting will be included under the Bill, which is appalling news for shooters across England.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman used the word ''exemptions''. It is a question not of exemptions but of what falls within the ambit of the Bill and what does not. If something is covered by the Bill, in some circumstances there are exemptions: they are exemptions from the general application of the Bill. That can be relevant only in relation to the hunting of mammals.
 In relation to the exemption that amendment No. 50 would change, the alternatives are to use the exemption and abide by its conditions or to register the activity and abide by the conditions of registration. It is clear where the line is drawn. Amendment No. 50 would increase the maximum number of dogs used to stalk or flush from cover from two to 40. Again, that relates to mammals, not to other species. 
 I gained the impression that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire was almost not serious about the number 40, but felt that two was too limited. He has not proposed a more reasonable number than two, but has chosen a number that is several large jumps away from the requirements set out in the Bill.

James Gray: Are we to conclude from that remark that the Minister would be content with another number which was not two but equally was not 40? If so, he might like to suggest what that number is.

Alun Michael: No. If the hon. Gentleman believes that two is not appropriate, he should propose something sensible, instead of suggesting a number that is so distant from the original intention of the Bill.

James Gray: Twenty.

Alun Michael: Why did the hon. Gentleman not put 20 in the amendment and argue for 20? He seems to be turning the debate into a bidding—

George Stevenson: Order. I strongly suggest that we should keep to the wording and the numbers contained in the amendment.

Alun Michael: I am entirely happy to do so. I think that I have demonstrated the unreasonableness of the amendment.

George Stevenson: James Garnier.

Edward Garnier: That is my brother.

George Stevenson: Edward Garnier.

Edward Garnier: Edward, thank you very much, Mr. Stevenson.
 Will the Minister explain why he believes that two is the appropriate number?

Alun Michael: We are discussing an amendment that seeks to put a different number into the Bill. I can see from your expression, Mr. Stevenson, that you would like me to address the amendments.
 The exemption for stalking and flushing out in paragraph 1 of schedule 1 is narrowly drawn to limit the number of dogs that can be used to two, and only above ground, to minimise the possibility of the exemption being abused. The Committee will be aware that in Scotland there is no limit on the number of dogs allowed to flush wild mammals from cover. Drawing from that experience, I believe that we would be unwise to be tempted by the amendment. 
 Amendment No. 296 would allow an unlimited number of dogs, or a maximum of 40 if amendment No. 50 were accepted, to be used to train 
''a dog in connection with the use of raptors to hunt, or during field trials conducted according to Kennel Club rules''.
 There is no justification for making an exception that an unlimited number of dogs can be used for training purposes 
''in connection with the use of raptors to hunt''.
 There is an exception for falconry in paragraph 5 of schedule 1. That allows a wild mammal to be flushed from cover to enable a bird of prey to hunt it. As raptor means the same as bird of prey, I see no benefit in widening the exemption and introducing a more technical term. If accepted, the amendment could cause confusion and possibly provide a loophole to be exploited by illegal hunters. 
 The Committee considered field trials when it discussed an earlier group of amendments headed by amendment No. 204. For the reasons that I set out then, I am not prepared to consider an exception. It is apparent that certain processes in the activity are not affected by the provisions of the Bill or, where they are, fall under one of the exceptions. Where the activity is caught, those affected have two options—to modify the practices or to seek registration. 
 The hon. Member for Chesterfield, whose contribution I welcome, moved amendment No. 347, in which he seeks to add a new condition to the exemption allowing the rescue of a wild mammal. 
 Under the Bill, six conditions have to be met to allow a dog or dogs to be used to rescue a wild mammal. 
 The amendment would add a seventh condition that would limit to two the number of dogs permitted to be used to rescue a wild mammal. I recognise the potential for a person to claim that they were rescuing an animal, but I am satisfied that any attempt to abuse that exemption would soon be spotted. In drafting the Bill, I have not limited the number of dogs to be used when rescuing a mammal that may be diseased or injured subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 7 of schedule 1. The welfare of the diseased or injured animal is paramount, and imposing a limit on the number of dogs could hinder the rescue activity. 
 There is no existing restriction to the use of two dogs in the rescue of a wild mammal as specified in the paragraph 7 exemption. There is the restriction to two dogs in the stalking and flushing out exemption, but that does not apply to the exemption in paragraph 7. I raise that because of the comment made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. There is a precedent for the exemption in paragraph 7 in the Deadline 2000 Bill, which was considered in the previous Parliament. That legislation did not include any restriction on the number of dogs used, and the present Bill follows that approach. I hope that following these comments the amendments will not be pursued.

John Gummer: I would like to come back to the question of the limit of two dogs. I have to say with great humility that it is not for the Opposition to suggest what figure might be appropriate, it is for the Minister to defend the figure that he has chosen. Elegant though his statement was, he did not defend it at all. He merely said that he had chosen the figure because it is the figure that I have chosen, and I have chosen that figure because I do not want any abuse. I do not see why the use of three or four dogs might be an abuse. One has to have a better reason for the limit of two dogs.
 The amendment suggests a larger number. I would not tie myself to a particular number, but to suggest that the limit should be two because the number in the amendment is too big is an inappropriate way of responding to a reasonable comment. There are many circumstances in which more than two dogs are necessary. It may be that 40 dogs are too many. I do not disagree with the argument that that might be a cover for some illicit activity, but it would not be unreasonable to suggest the sort of numbers that are normally found in that area. If the Minister were willing to say that he would go away and have a look at the figure, and be a little more accommodating, that would be helpful. 
 The second issue is that of flushing out. The Minister said that he did not think that the Bill would refer to shooting in any circumstances. He went on to explain that it would not refer to field trials unless certain activities were to take place in those trials. That is a very confusing view on two different issues. The Minister says the Bill would not affect 
 shooting. Some Conservative Members enjoy shooting, as do I. It is not always easy to tell dogs to flush out only game birds. They often flush out mammals. Does there have to be an intention in the mind of the dog owner or handler not to flush out mammals? If there has to be such an intention, it is difficult to defend having a dog there at all. We know perfectly well that it will flush out mammals. That cannot be avoided. 
 Unless the Bill specifically states that that does not refer to the circumstances in which the main purpose of the activity is shooting, my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire is right to say that the shooting fraternity, of which I am proud to be a member, will find itself in difficulty. Those of us who want to ensure that we do not break the law must admit that our dogs sometimes do that. They could flush out a fox or quite a lot of hares. That happens all the time with muntjac and other deer. I recently had the pleasure of seeing about 11 deer coming down the hill just over the horizon from my home to drink water early one morning and it was a lovely sight. One way of getting them down to the water would be to take the dog for a walk, but if I took three dogs for a walk, I might be in difficulty. 
 The problem for the Minister is that he wants to reassure people in the countryside that he is on their side, that he cares about them and that he has gone to great trouble to understand them. Yet every time that we talk about the details, which are not hidden but are reality for anyone who takes part in country sports or lives in, and cares about, the countryside, he tends to suggest that his nearness to the facts and closeness to reality is in question. Again I say to him, for his own reputation and that of his party, it would be helpful if he could think of a way to ensure that people who go shooting feel that the Bill has nothing to do with them. Unless he does that, there will be an increasing fear of what most of us believe anyway: one down, three to go, and that when hunting has been dealt with, shooting and other activities will be next. 
 You would soon stop me, Mr. Stevenson, if I talked about shooting, but the reason for the amendment is 
 to make absolutely sure that the Minister is protected from the folly of those who have advised him because their advice has certainly brought shooting within the ambit of the Bill.

Edward Garnier: The Minister said that because the amendment refers only to 40 he need not condescend to justify his figure of two. I think that he does and that the proceedings of the Committee would be greatly enhanced if he condescended to justify his drafting of paragraph 1(4). That has even greater force when one sees that, as he candidly pointed out, there is no mention of a number in paragraph 1(7) or (6).

Paul Holmes: On amendment No. 347, I appreciate the Minister's assurance that the intention of paragraph 1(7) is not to allow large packs of hounds to hunt injured or diseased animals under the terms of the rescue clause. I am not convinced by the argument that it would be apparent to someone in that situation that they were breaking the law. There will be an unnecessarily grey area in the legislation if the loophole is not closed, and I shall press my amendment.

George Stevenson: We shall all be called to vote at 5 pm, so this is an appropriate moment to suspend the Committee. The best assessment that I can offer is that the Committee should stand suspended until 7.30 pm. If there is any delay, the Committee will reconvene as soon as the voting has finished, but I anticipate that 7.30 pm will be adequate to provide a short break. I hope that hon. Members will accept that.
 I am advised that we cannot return to Room 14 this evening because a Minister has booked it for 150 people. We can have it on Thursday morning—perhaps hon. Members will make a note of that—but we cannot have it on Thursday afternoon because the Northern Ireland Grand Committee is being televised again. I hope that that is clear to hon. Members. 
 Sitting suspended. 
 [Continued in column 799]